Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!jato!jbrown
From: jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Anti-Commercialism (was Re: File packaging and compression)
Message-ID: <342@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 13 Oct 88 06:55:44 GMT
References: <259@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <572@flyer.apctrc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown)
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Lines: 40

In article <572@flyer.apctrc.UUCP> zgel05@flyer.UUCP (George E. Lehmann) writes:
>In article <259@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes:
>>I agree completely with somebody who said that we (USENET, BBSes, etc)
>>simply should not be depending on a commercial product.
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
> [a number of valid points about commercial stuff being non-evil]
>
>Not all commercial products are good, nor are all good products commercial.
>However, without the ongoing revenue earned by these entities, none of the
>major developments we love would exist.

You mean like all the Berkeley enhancements to UNIX?  Like GNU*?  Like
USENET "news"?

What really bothers me about "commercial" products is that when
something goes wrong or I need a new feature, I CAN'T FIX IT.  Even
when the person supplies source (*rare*, but SEA does) the restrictions
on it are usually prohibitive.

With PD, source-distributed software, if I need a new feature, I can
add it.  I don't have to reengineer the entire product.  Then I can
give a copy to you, and if you don't think my feature is quite right
you can fix it.  Ideally, we remerge the source, and everything is
great.  We might have a new feature implemented and distributed in a
matter of weeks, rather than the months it would take a commercial
outfit, if they saw fit to do it at all.

Sure, I use PC-DOS, MSC, and so on.  If there were source-available
replacements I would use them in preference.  (Does the GNU cc do
large-model 8086 for MSDOS?)

Sure, I make my salary writing software for sale.  Doesn't mean I have
to like it.  When I can, I prefer to give stuff away.  Unfortunately, that
doesn't pay the mortgage.

For the vast majority of the software market, it doesn't matter that
there's no source.  The vast majority wouldn't know what to do with it.
However, USENET is *not* the vast majority.  USENET people tend to be
technical and willing and able to contribute improvements.  I find this
to be a pleasant atmosphere, and one which I would like to work for.